If You Want to Stop Having This Debate… IV

“Whenever this topic comes up the bike-promotion advocates accuse us of only caring about highly skilled riders. This elitist accusation is something that is hurled at cycling educators all the time. It’s unfair and a red herring.”

When people say this, they really mean that they think that if they object to any of your ideas you’ll call their comments “asinine”, accuse them of “tempter tantrums”, and compare the notion of getting safe infrastructure, the kind others have tested and enjoyed themselves, as being equivalent to Flat Earthers.

Next she posts photos where there’s someone riding in a bike lane and she calls the person uneducated. I’m glad that she’s going to post data and keep the discussion at the level of honest disagreement about personal opinions and the study of objective data instead of name calling. 🙂

The point is that people rarely die in bike lanes. It’s a fact. Meanwhile, a great number of people, both inside and outside of cars get hit in the travel lane. This has been established by many, many studies, all of them which Keri has read.

“The truth is, it requires MORE education to outsmart the manufactured conflicts. In his interview with Dan, Mighk pointed out that bike lanes have been sold to the public as safe but, in fact, are riddled with conflicts for which the unskilled, unaware rider is completely unprepared. How is that elitist or only concerned about highly-skilled riders?”

Two reaons. First of all because it’s not true. Second because you offer us nothing. We don’t want a class so definition we are uneducated. If you educate us, we won’t be uneducated anymore. If you cared about uneducated riders, you’d support what has been proven to work. First you’ll look at the safest cities, study their practices, and bring them to Orlando. You’ll talk to the engineers in safer cities and ask why is this so.

If you didn’t care about anyone but your own religion, you’d make a class which is based on a misreading of data from the 70’s and you’d perpetuate lies about things such as the imaginary “door zone”.

I posted an article about the solution to dooring. Gull wing doors. Since you have read about everything about cycling and are an expert who out thought all of use stupid masses, you have all ready realized that that gull wing door solves this problem. But since you don’t care about us, you don’t promote it.

“It is actually elitist to foist such a facility on an unsuspecting person with the false promise of being a safe place to ride… simply because you want them to ride a bike.”

I agree that tricking a person to ride in a way that you know is unsafe is wrong. This is why I oppose Saavy Cycling (sic).

“Bicyclists deserve better than to have advocates who settle for, or promote, dangerous facilities in the name of increased mode share and then try to marginalize those who are demanding better. ”

Again, i agree. However, there are no current cyclists who promote dangerous facilities, just safe ones. Most of us would like to have them designed by real engineers who care about the great unwashed masses like myself. If you stand in OUR way, the majority, as you have all ready stated, then you are saying that your judgement is better than those who have more experience and have gotten better results.

“Bicyclists deserve better than advocates who try to shut down criticism of poorly-thought infrastructure.”

How do we “shut down criticism”? If only I had such power!

“Let’s work for connectivity of enjoyable streets. In the urban core, we’re most of the way there. Recently-added facilities like the Cady Way connector and the Dinky Line trail have enhanced the network. There have also been some great new wayfinding signs added to help people navigate quiet street routes. Farther from the urban core, it’s not as easy to find quiet routes. ”

Um, I thought you said we could ride our bikes everywhere, that you had cyclist’s “rights to the road” in mind. Now, am I hearing that we only have the rights to the most indirect and convoluted of routes? That sucks!

I’d prefer a cycle track which follows the quicker and more direct routes. Please, Ms. Advocate, who did promise to give me the best!

Why the hell are you promoting highly inconvenient and slow routes! I have figured these out on my own, and they are more pleasant to ride on. I take the slower and more indirect routes all the time. So what, beyond this, does Keri offer? Nothing. The infrastructurists promise a much more efficient commute.

” But there are plenty of easements in the disconnected suburbs that could be used to enhance connectivity of better routes. Our readers have identified many of them.”

I agree. Build them. But this is not enough. This is not the best as you have promised. I want to ride, separated from traffic on EVERY SINGLE STREET IN THE WHOLE CITY. I WANT THE SAME AREA OF REAL ESTATE FOR MY BIKE AS CARS GET AND I WANT AS MUCH MONEY SPENT ON CYCLING AS CARS GET. This is second best. If you give me 100% of all the transporation budget, increase taxes to give us more money, then this would, indeed be the best. Do you still want to give me that?

I’m not asking for “the best” but you offered so I did a mental experiment to see what that would mean to me. I’d be kind of scared, but happy, too, to have “second best.” I think if I made a list of bike plans, your plan would come a few steps below “do nothing”. Oh, data backs me up on this, but you have read that.

“What they choose to do by default often puts them at risk of being hit. ”

No, we are all at risk of being hit. Here in San Diego, people are hit while standing on sidewalks as well as on separated bike paths where two cars flew off the road. But “uneducated” cyclists are the problem and not out of control design for high speed roads which encourage speeding. Nor is the problem the law which is constantly adjusted to make unlawful speeding last year, the speed limit for next year.

“The impression that bicycling is dangerous is primarily fed by the results of default, unsuccessful behavior.”

No, it’s not. Biking is pretty safe no matter how stupid the cyclist is. Only 600-700 people die a year. If you really did your research, you’d realize that motoring is more deadly. We want infrastructure for more than safety, but also for comfort and efficiency. But you knew that and chose to ignore it because making things easy for people and giving them what they want, in your mind, is to give them “less than the best.”

” I just wish all of the infrastructure was compatible with the successful behavior we teach, and we didn’t have to spend time teaching students to outsmart manufactured conflicts.
The only “manufactured conflict” I’ve seen is a sharrow.

“In my experience, Orlando is a great place to ride. ”

“Florida’s big cities, specifically Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville and Miami, were deemed the most dangerous cities in the US for bicyclists and pedestrians.” [http://floridacyclinglaw.com/blog/archives/florida-bicycling-dangerous-by-design]

Did this article go into your thinking when you sat down to make a plan for safer cycling in Orlando? If not, why don’t you discuss why this is so? I expect that you’d blame cyclists first instead of realizing that the city is badly designed because there are crazy vehicular cyclists on the loose… 🙂

“There are still a lot of things we can do to make it better.”

Step one is to move up to second most dangerous city instead of first. I’m still waiting for that to happen. Seems like you are striping some bike lanes which are slightly safer than doing nothing, but definitely not close to being world class…

“The only way to get there is for advocates and policymakers to listen to the concerns of people who have diligently studied the problems rather than knee-jerk sniping and trying to suppress information that challenges a belief they’ve unquestioningly accepted.”

But I have “studied the problem”. I guess they should listen to me.

And if you are so into questioning your beliefs, why have you still not read the articles I posted? I am still awaiting your intelligent and open minded response.

“Then maybe we could move on to some creative solutions for safe, fun, enjoyable cycling networks and a cooperative, friendly environment for bicycling.”

No. Vehicular cycling is an insane and deadly religion which only seeks to justify itself. It’s a closed system to new data, and it can only repeat variations on its own failed ideologies. If you just forgot everything you think you know and start riding in real cycling cities, only then can we have a real and open dialog. Let’s both go to Copenhagen together, put some beers in our baskets (it’s legal there!), and ride in some cycle traffics with the grandmas and five year old with cognitive disabilities you love to talk about.